Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #90 - Dec 4th, 2016 at 8:17am

Quote:

How many times must I do that for you freediver? I have agreed with that.

You have hinted at it once so far, then avoided it. So you actually agree that he was jailed for "refusing to cease denying" the holocaust, but describe as a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" my description that he was jailed for denying the holocaust, then produce evidence that supports my interpretation without making the distinction you do.

How many times must I do that for you freediver? I have agreed with that.

You have hinted at it once so far, then avoided it. So you actually agree that he was jailed for "refusing to cease denying" the holocaust, but describe as a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" my description that he was jailed for denying the holocaust, then produce evidence that supports my interpretation without making the distinction you do.

Is that why you spent so long avoiding going into any detail Aussie?

There you go yet again with deceptive language. He was jailed for Contempt of Court. His contempt was defiance of a Court Order. The Court Order was that he cease distributing holocaust denial material. He then distributed that material. Ergo, he was not jailed for denying the holocaust.

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold MemberOffline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 40683
I like fish

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speechReply #95 - Dec 6th, 2016 at 5:57pm

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

I've corrected the question so that I am not verballed, and to make it accurate in terms of what I said, and not what FD wishes I had said.

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

I've corrected the question so that I am not verballed, and to make it accurate in terms of what I said, and not what FD wishes I had said.

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust?

How many times must I do that for you freediver? I have agreed with that.

Pausing there, it follows from the above that there is no room for dispute that Dr Toben has spent time in prison in Australia for criminal contempt constituted by the publication of material found to have racially vilified the Jewish people and which conveyed imputations including that there was serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred.

After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

Yes.

Do you always find it this easy to promote two contradictory positions at the same time? Is this why you kept promising to run away from this discussion and not return?

Quote:

Yes - Raven has explained it to you several times.

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

No alternatives have been put forward. You, Raven and Aussie have come up with nothing more than "you are wrong, but we can't say what the right answer is".

Quote:

Could you explain to me how Joe Hockey demonstrated financial loss in his win in the 'treasurer for sale' headline?

After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

Yes.

Do you always find it this easy to promote two contradictory positions at the same time? Is this why you kept promising to run away from this discussion and not return?

Quote:

Yes - Raven has explained it to you several times.

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

No alternatives have been put forward. You, Raven and Aussie have come up with nothing more than "you are wrong, but we can't say what the right answer is".

Quote:

Could you explain to me how Joe Hockey demonstrated financial loss in his win in the 'treasurer for sale' headline?